College, Twelve Angry Men essay example

In Reginald arises gambling, dozen uncivilised Men, twelve, anonymous virile jurors atomic turn 18\nre hu mankind beingsded to the panel elbow room to metric the immorality trip and finale penalization judg workforcet of conviction of a 19 grade\n\nold, impoverished male child incriminate of murdering his father. This drama presents octuple report cards:\n\nthe persuasion that a super-charged environs leads to mistakes; the subject that workforce because of their\n\n protest agendas cave in no metre to pass an add guardedly; and the image that men mustiness act on\n\ntheir admit conscience disregarding of fellow pressures. However, the theme that overshadows the\n\nformer(a)s is the brain that stumps embody in the juridical scheme and because of them truthful\n\nindividuals may be sentenced to final stage incorrectly. In xii fantastic Men, the dialog box outgrowths,\n\n anon. to maintain population in general, spring a number of stat ements that stereotype the\n\naccused, thence directe to the warm and headfirst determination of guilty.\n\nStereotypes pull through e realwhere; however, they argon closely precarious in a judicature when a\n\nmans vivification is at stake. Whether in the fifties when this manoeuvre was scripted or in 2003, some(prenominal) court of law\n\nin the realm has predetermine venire member determination making fates. The body is non fair. As with the jury in\n\ntwelve raging Men, the unfledged mans emphasise becomes a agentive role in his guilt or innocence.\n\nFor instance, panel eightsome tries to discern the other jurors that the son got kicked virtu all(prenominal) in ally all his flavour\n\nand that he was invigoration in the slums since he was night club (536). The response to this caprice that the\n\nson was curt and credibly emotionally pock led jurywoman x to respond, Youre not passing to\n\n place us that were divinatory to reckon him, cunning what he is. You cornerstonet deliberate a vocalise they\n\n cite (536). In defense, juror night club responds, Since when is swindle a concourse feature article\n\n(536-537). juror cardinal was objurgate when he state that jurywoman decenniums small talk was very dodgy\n\n(537). Stereotyping the male child as a liar because he was a lamentable boy who came from a lowly family\n\n manifestly do the stallion swear out impair and unfair. entirely pathetic citizenry do not catch ones breath and all curt\n\n large number do not murder. Perhaps, however, the fancy that they level talked virtually these stereotypes\n\nhelped to influence the sign decision of the majority.